States can seek overseas loans for projects - The Hindu
Does this violate Art 293?
3.2 Since all the States are still indebted to Government of India, the constitutional position, therefore, is that prior consent of Government of India is necessary before a State Government raises a loan. Such prior consent is not necessary before the State government gives a guarantee. The State legislature is competent to limit the amount of guarantees which a State Government may give. It may be argued that guarantees are in the nature of a contingent liability which devolve on the State government in the event of default in repayment of loan; Article 293(3) may therefore, be stretched to extend to guarantees given by State governments. However, Article 293(1) specifically distinguishes between borrowing and guarantees. It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that ‘loan’ mentioned in Article 293(3) is intended to cover borrowing only and is not intended to apply to guarantees as well.3.3 The constitutional position, therefore, would be that State governments do not require prior consent of Government of India before giving a guarantee. It is possible to suggest that Government of India, while giving permission to State governments to raise loans may satisfy itself about the extent of guarantees given by the State government and impose conditions thereon. In view, however, of the different constitutional provisions relating to States powers to raise finances and issue guarantees, such suggestions would need to be vetted by constitutional experts who could limit the interpretation of conditions to be only those related to the specific loan for which consent is given.
Reading this it seems like since state entities are not covered by Article 293, they have been given permission to raise external borrowings. State is just acting as a guarantor. Thus, no violation of Article 293.
Also, read 3.10(e) from the link given below.
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?ID=17
thanks bro :)
Can a Union Territory approach the Supreme Court under Article 131 (original jurisdiction) ?
The doubt arises as the article only mentions "states" but Delhi did approach SC in 2016 as stated here -
That petition was withdrawn and never decided.
imo, UT can't, since Art 131 doesn't mention it. Further Art 366 (26B) fails to include Art 131. (State with reference to articles 246A, 268, 269, 269A and article 279A includes a Union
territory with Legislature.) There is nothing in Art 239AA either.
Can someone clarify which chapters are to be done for Tomorrow SFG Test from LaxmiKant ?
Syllabus website is not opening :/
SFG Level 2 v2 - Final (1).pdfIn the Aadhar judgement , the SC went into the question whether certification of aadhar bill as money bill is valid or not.
However , the Speaker's decision to certify a bill as money bill is final and binding and cannot be questioned in a court of law.
Is the second statement still valid after Judicial review done by SC?
in practice, SC can review anything on limited grounds: arbitrary, mala fide etc
btw, Aadhar case didn't technically decideon this issue. this was also later acknowledged by Roger Mathew case:
"majoritydictuminK.S. Puttaswamydid not substantially discuss the effect of the word ‘only’ in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a “Money Bill” do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g).”
[every judgment has ratio (ruling) & dicta (stuff said in passing)]
